@dh: "I've posted this to several groups already, and want to
see if the reaction from people in the Alaska group is 
significantly different than it has been from people in 
the others. Here's the post:
For years people cloaked beneath the gross misnomer
of "animal rights advocates/activists" have been insisting
that we give no consideration at all to the lives of animals
raised for food when those lives are of positive value to
the animals. They insist we do not consider what the animals
gain from being farmed, regardless of the quality of their lives.
To "aras" it is all pure exploitation *because* the animals are
killed deliberately by humans. There are some even more 
extreme beliefs than that, going so far as to insist we never 
give the lives of any creatures any boydanne@example.net. 
Which lives, if any, should we take into consideration when
we think about human infuence on animals? Should we
restrict some of them from our thinking, but allow ourselves
to consider others? Should we always restrict ourselves from
considering the lives of animals who are deliberately killed
by humans for some reason(s)? Should we allow ourselves 
to give consideration to the lives of animals raised by humans, 
provided they are not deliberately killed by humans? How 
about wildlife?
_______________________________________________
Quiz:
Should we allow ourselves to consider the lives of all,
none, or some of the following examples when we think 
about human influence on animals?
1a  2 week old fawns killed by dogs
1b  2 week old fawns killed by wolves
1c  2 week old fawns killed heavy snow
1d  2 year old deer killed by human hunters
2a  5 day old field mice killed by plows
2b  5 day old field mice killed by snakes
2c  5 day old field mice killed by heavy rain
2d  2 year old field mice killed by traps
3a  6 week old pheasants killed by cars
3b  6 week old pheasants killed by hawks
3c  6 week old pheasants killed by electric fences
3d  2 year old pheasants killed by human hunters
4a  4 week old broiler chicks killed by accidentally getting crushed
4b  4 week old broiler chicks killed by weasels
4c  4 week old broiler chicks killed by power failures
4d  6 week old broiler chicks killed by commercial slaughter
(bonus questions:)
4e  4 week old broiler chicks killed by rats
4f  4 week old broiler chicks killed by disease
4g  4 week old broiler chicks killed by smothering
4h  4 week old broiler chicks killed by bad feed
4i  4 week old broiler chicks killed by tornadoes
4j  4 week old broiler chicks killed by getting stepped on
4k  4 week old broiler chicks killed by foxes
4l  4 week old broiler chicks killed by dogs
4m  3 day old broiler chicks killed by snakes
4n  4 week old broiler chicks killed by flooding from heavy rain"
    @reanimater_2000: "<quote>
1. If evolution is true various environmental factors alter the course
of a species form and behavior.
2. Many animals are carnivorus, meaning they either kill or find other
animals and then eat them.
3. Humans are animals and evidence suggests that they are somewhat
carnivorus, for many 10's of thousands of years eating fruits,
vegetables, seeds, nuts, insects and small animals.
4. Humans can alter the evolutionary course of other animals, for
instance canines, and turn a basic wolf into hundreds of breeds of
dogs.
If the ethical nature of 1. and 2. are not determinable and 3. and 4.
are extensions of 1. and 2. then whether something benifits these
animals seems to be undertimnable since the effected species probably
would have lived and reproduced in some direction or went extinct.
Since most animals that humans domesticated were animals that followed
humans around and evolved further human interaction neurons, if we
were to abandone them would at least be equivalent to humans
abandoning their own children...
rambling here, help me develop these thesis
This is like the utilitarian rap about basing inalienable humans
rights on the conception of the frailty of human nature which will
abuse those rights. Once the conception changes we lose the
justification of human rights, hence the need for a better
justification for the sanctity of these creature's lives."
    @dh: "<quote>
    Human farming is one such factor.
    Humans are natural omnivores.
  � The meat industry includes habitats in which a small 
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those 
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant 
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also 
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg 
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will 
only live if people continue to raise them for food.
    Animals that are born to other groupssuch as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few 
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals 
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. �
    No, it's just about showing basic consideration for some
of the animals that humans have influence on."
    @a_f_r_i_e_n_d: "<quote>
I could care less about any of these outcomes regardless the species
involved or the manner of death.
I eat very little meat, but that is more about the difficulty in
processing those products by my system, rather than any political or
philosophical perspective on the rights of animals.
If you want steak tonight, kill it, beat it, bruise it, find it as
road kill, as a byproduct of an act of another animal, farming, etc.
It's your choice."
    @dh: "<quote>
    Meaning that you're not capable of having a realistic
interpretation of human influence on animals.
    I choose to consider the lives of animals raised for food
as well as their deaths."
    @daybrown: "<quote>
"In the Footsteps of Alexander" with Michael Woods on PBS, he found
the Lakash, up in the Pakistan mtns next to Tibet, who claimed they
were descendants of wounded solders left there by Alexander. This is
believeable because they said it in ancient Greek.
And they were still *Dionysian*. I've often wondered why modern
"neopagans" have not gone there to meet the real McCoy.  Anyway, while
there, the sacrificed a goat. Now, we all know the way the Bible says
to do it, build an altar, pile on the firewood, and burn the whole
animal up to the greater honor of Jehovah, or whatever his name is.
But here, the altar to Dionysus is right by the pasture gate. Grab
goat, slit throat, throw a handful of blood on the altar, then go have
a barbi cause Dionysus loves a good party. Now, that's my kind of
God.
Note- they didnt pack the animal on a noisy truck for a long ride to a
slaughterhouse with the smell of blood in the air.  With the pagans,
one minute, the goat expected to be fed, the next, its meat."
    @dh: "<quote>
Lev 1
3 " 'If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to offer 
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the 
Tent of Meeting so that it will be acceptable to the LORD. 
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it 
will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him. 
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then 
Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it 
against the altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of 
Meeting. 
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. 
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and 
arrange wood on the fire. 
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, 
including the head and the fat, on the burning wood that is 
on the altar. 
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and 
the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, 
an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
Lev 19
5 " 'When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the LORD, 
sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. 
6 It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; 
anything left over until the third day must be burned up. 
7 If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not 
be accepted. 
8 Whoever eats it will be held responsible because he has 
desecrated what is holy to the LORD; that person must be 
cut off from his people.
1 Kings 8:63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings 
to the LORD : twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and 
twenty thousand sheep and goats. So the king and all the 
Israelites dedicated the temple of the LORD.
    It's good when that can be avoided, but killing on the farm
creates sanitation hazards that people today have developed
regulations designed to prevent. They include where and how
animals can be slaughtered for commercial use.
    What would make you think there's any significant smell of
blood in the air in livestock trucks? 
    That's the best way for the animals, but not always the
best way for their consumers."
    @daybrown: "I appreciate the correction from scripture, altho I believe you will
find other methods at other times in the text.
But in the first place, there is a small family owned slaughterhouse
just 3 miles from me. Curiously, the whole show is run by women, who
use overhead electric dollies to 'manhandle' 1000 lbs of beef. Altho
they'll do whatever you bring them. But mostly, its grass fed cattle,
which is beginning to catch on because of the lower fat, higher high
quality protein.
The smell of blood I refer to is in the air around the large factory
slaughterhouses. The whole process is stressful to the stock, and if
you keep them around very long, you havta shoot them up with
antibiotics. Which is developing new resistant strains threatening the
health of everyone except the bottom line of the corporate owners.
But in my neck of the Southern Ozark woods, what looks like 'organic'
stockbreeding is expanding. Land too steep to plow can still be used
for pasture, which ordinarily has trees left on it to provide summer
shade to reduce heat stress. The stock live fairly normal lives, in
small herds that dont need to be constantly shot up with
pharmaceuticals.
Its not that big a deal to butcher on the farm any more either.
Everyone has running water. I've parted out a deer on the tailgate of
a pickup with a garden hose & sawzall in 20 minutes. From being shot
to wrapped up in the freezer in half an hour dont leave much time for
bacterial contamination to be a problem. Were I to do an ox, it'd
prolly take me twice as long, and I'd use my electric chainsaw. No
antibiotics, and no traces of anti-septic chemicals needed, just well
water to hose up the mess.
But scripture was the first step in a specialization process that got
us where we are. The point was quickly reached where the 'sacrifice'
was not for the benefit of the whole tribe, but the power elite, the
Levites. It was the power elites that first began recieving meat on
their tables that they didnt kill, much less butcher and have to deal
with the mess. Thus began the psychological disconnection between meat
and living animals, which people on the farms in my neck of the Ozarks
still resist.
I lament the loss of breeds as well. Those who've not raised a Jersey
calf cant appreciate the personality of this line, known today for its
milk, but among my own ancestors for its companionship plowing the
fields. They are like jumbo puppies- docile, obedient, and even
sometimes playful. were it not for the milk, the line would be gone
with the China hog that vegetarians have no use for, that agribusiness
has no use for, and are now extinct."
    @dh: "<quote>
    Except for probably during good portions of the winter it sounds
like they should generally experience decent lives of positive value
...at least as good or better than the majority of grazing wildlife in
the area.
    For years I've been pointing out that we should give the lives of
livestock as much or more consideration than their deaths, and
"aras" have been trying to argue that we should not. They have
no good boydanne@example.net. One of their most insistent is amusingly
also one of their most absurd. They claim that somehow something
to do with a supposed state of "pre-existence" prevents everything
from benefitting from its own existence. Of course they can't back
that upor even try to!but they desperately make the claim time
after time after time...
    High cream yeild is what I've been told about.
    I didn't know they were used for plowing.
    The eliminationists have been trying to convince everyone that
the "pre-existence state" is better, so they insist:
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the existence 
we know . . . it does not make them better off" - Goo"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 8, "forum_name": "alt.agnosticism.20141115.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.agnosticism.parquet'}